One of my biggest frustrations with Liberals who call themselves Christians is that when you ask them to justify their position in scripture they cannot do it effectively and have to twist the words of scripture (And add stuff in or take away) to fit their view.

Case in point, I was debating an Anglican minister who thinks abortion is ok. So I said what's your scriptural justification? He quoted a verse that he said it said if a man hits a woman and she has a miscarriage then its a civil matter (And he claims that this means the Bible is ok with abortion) . It turns out that that verse just says if two men are fighting and one accidentally hurts the woman causing her to go into labor early then there is a fine, and one verse later it says if further mischief then life for life, eye for eye. So if the baby died, that man would be killed.

So then he said, well abortion is not forbidden in the Bible, to which I replied, oh great let's go back to enslaving african americans because that isn't directly forbidden in the Bible either.

Even after being shown all the scripture under the sun as opposition to his view he still clung to it like his view is more precious than God's word.

This is extremely frustrating because having been an atheist I understood my world view had no problem with abortion, divorce, sex outside of marriage et-al, and I also understood when I became a Christian that these and much else had to change to fit the Christian path and the Scriptures.

Is there anyone else out there who experiences these frustrations? Have you got some good examples if ridiculous interpretations by liberals so they can do what they want....

"Even after being shown all the scripture under the sun as opposition to his view..."

That took about 30 seconds, right?

"This is extremely frustrating because having been an atheist ..."

So what made you go soft in the head? Are you sure you're not just a conformist social chameleon?

"Have you got some good examples if ridiculous interpretations by liberals so they can do what they want...."

No, but history is full of examples of ridiculous interpretations by ultra-conservatives so they can do what they want - to other people! Start with the Reformation, or the Puritans' persecution of the Quakers (among others) and work your way right up to GOTT MIT UNS!

The way I had always heard it is that "mischief" was defined as either the woman or the man dying, not the fetus.
Sorry, bunky, but the Bible is not a valid reference for anything, precisely because it can be interpreted in many different ways.

"One of my biggest frustrations with Liberals who call themselves Christians is that when you ask them to justify their position in scripture they cannot do it effectively and have to twist the words of scripture (And add stuff in or take away) to fit their view."

Oh, I know; it's terrible isn't it?

How many of the clegy in the Church of England - the basis of modern Protestant Christianity - some of whom are Emeritus Professors of Theology (and in the decades of study, research etc, thus know far more about the subject than just about everyone in Christian circles in the US), and who readily acknowledge that much of the Bible is purely fable & metaphor; as in not to be taken literally, see it as a simple moral guide, and that the individual has the right to decide things for themself.

How frustrating it must be for you, eh, you poor dear? Acknowledging that not every Christian out there is a rabid Religious Right type like you.

...oh, and as for 'Liberals who call themselves Christians', the Quakers and Unitarian Universalists are gonna blow your mind with their 'Live and let live', non-judgemental & hyper-tolerant attitudes, pal.

And then there are jerks like you who call themselves Christians, and keep putting your personal interpretation on a book of allegorical fables as a way to deal with life. And then prate on about 'ridiculous interpretations'.

@Brendan Rizzo For a moment I thought this was from an atheist. It's still not fundie because this does point out the problems with "cafeteria Christianity".

Well, this is an argument that I've heard semi-often from fellow atheists, and one that never fails to bug me.

The implication is that despite their craziness, fundamentalist Christians are somehow more honest about their religious dogma than the more moderate ones. This isn't the case. Self-declared Biblical literalists are every bit as much "picking-and-choosing" as anyone else, it's just that they are in absolute denial about the parts they neglect. It makes them more hypocritical, not more sincere than those who openly reject some sections of the Bible as allegorical or culture-dependant or only applicable in the kingdom of God or whatever.

Literalism isn't a core dogma of Christianity. Not all Christian believe in the literal inerrancy of a compilation of writings put together by a bunch of Romans. There is no rational reason for us atheists to believe that they should. There is nothing rational in putting all Christians in the same bag of sheepish, blind dogmatism, with the only distinction being how honest they are about it.

Also, while not all fundies are Christian fundamentalists, all Christian fundamentalists are fundies by definition. I thought that was obvious. I mean, there's a reason why it's called fundie.

This is why I feel that if someone's going to follow the Bible, they must either pick one Testament over the other. You can't follow both! The OT & NT contradict like crazy. Also, everyone cherry-picks....however Moderate/Liberal cherrypickers cherrypick the parts of the Bible that are good & truly "Godly" while Fundies only like the DEATH VERSES OF DOOM!

That's funny, because one of my biggest frustrations with conservatives who call themselves Christian is that they can't justify THEIR positions in scripture.

Despite the fact that it directly contradicts the teachings of Jesus, they vote to end welfare, Food Stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. They vigorously support the death penalty, and they think they shouldn't have to pay their taxes, unless of course, those taxes go to fund war, in which case they're all for Republicans spending their tax money like drunken sailors. They also make up Biblical prohibitions against abortion which do not exist (i.e., "ridiculous interpretations").

If god intended us to follow scripture he should have given as a book that actually makes sense, and not this mish-mash of inaccuracies and contradictions which doesn't amount to much more than a gigantic heap of rotting word salad.

You do realize that by implying that slavery is wrong despite not being forbidden in the bible, you are in fact arguing against the bible being used as a basis for civil law - essentially refuting your own argument.

"So then he said, well abortion is not forbidden in the Bible, to which I replied, oh great let's go back to enslaving african americans because that isn't directly forbidden in the Bible either. "

So now you have a problem. Abortion is not prohibited by the bible, but slavery is encouraged, while you have to take the opposite opinion. Now do you understand why normal people point and laugh at you?